Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Rebecca Eckler Rocks!

I've been reading about the Rebecca Eckler/Judd Apatow lawsuit recently.
Truthfully, lawsuits usually bore me. But, because it involves one of my favourite writers, a new movie and a whole bunch of controversy, I'm fascinated.
I haven't seen the movie. I don't have any plans to in the near future. I hated the movie The 40-Year-old Virgin. Really. I didn't find it funny. I think I fell asleep. (my husband loved it though). But, I'm sure we would have rented it someday because it really is the kind of movie my husband finds funny.
I totally see where Rebecca is coming from on this. The title is exactly the same. The plot is exactly the same. The freaking logo is exactly the same. And, why not pursue it. I would. We all would.
And, it does make me wonder how much research this guy did - because even if he copied her entire book BY ACCIDENT there should be someone doing research to make sure that such a fluke doesn't occur.
But besides all of that, what is making me angry is how some people out there are using this as a platform to start trying to slam her yet again. It's ridiculous.
I understand not agreeing with a lawsuit - but to then start discussing how she sucks is completely childless. And a big time waster.
Today I got an e-mail from someone (hi!) - and she talked about being a fan of Rebecca's as well. And she pointed out the negative attention that Rebecca has gotten lately.
I realized that if this were a friend of mine, for instance, at work, I'd totally be on their side - and supporting them. And, Rebecca is my friend in the blogosphere. So for the record - I totally support her :) And so do a lot of others.
So, I don't care how dorky this sounds ... I think she's great. And I for one am not stooping to the level of annoying anonymous people who feel the need to bash her.


Anonymous said...

the plot is NOT exactly the same. Eckler got pregnant by HER FIANCE - in the movie, it's a one night stand with a guy the woman just met. Eckler's fiance is wealthy - in the movie, it's an unemployed loser.

The movie is entirely about two people WHO DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER going through a pregnancy and trying to make a relationship work. Eckler's book is self-absorbed tripe about a woman with too much time and money.

The character in the movie - is Canadian because the actor is canadian and couldn't lose his accent. No one is copying Eckler. Her life story is completely, entirely different from the one told in this movie. Gee, there's a joke in the movie that is similar to a joke Eckler had in her book? It's also a joke EVERY PREGNANT WOMAN EVER has heard at some point. A pregnant woman feels uncomfortable in a bar? Wow, surely Eckler is the only person who has ever had that particular experience.

I hope Universal wipes the floor with her. And the fact you actually LIKE her? Well, I'll never be visiting this blog again - anyone who admires Eckler isn't worth knowing.

Infectiouslaughter said...

It's funny. Before I heard of the lawsuit, when I first heard of the movie, I thought to myself wow... that's similar to RE's book.

I was suprised to hear of the lawsuit only because I made the same connection.

Steph said...

Thanks Laural for this timely post. There are few things more important than standing by your work and what you believe. One similarity is coincidence- multiple are highly suspicious. It is more than just about the phrase "knocked up." Others can and will have their fun at her expense but the nastiness towards her is unfair. Leave the woman alone- if you don't like her writing don't read Macleans, her books or her blog. She is clearly successful without you.

christina said...

i just came across your page and read your entry on the whole judd apatow deal.

i pretty much agree with what the first poster said, because her book is completely different from the plot of the movie. yes i've read the book too.

the woman in the movie gets pregnant with someone she doesn't know and YES even though she's an "upcoming journalist", she's on tv, therefore she has to deal with hiding her pregnancy because the execs or whatever they're called wouldn't like it. the relationship between the two develop during the nine months, which is what makes it cute in a way (well that's my opinion on it).

in the book rebecca gets pregnant with her FIANCE. personally i don't find someone who's pregnant with her fiance's baby, falling for some other guy, exactly "great". but then again i don't know her personality enough or the exact situation (unless that is what really happened, then i find it rude for what she did). her book chronicles her journey being pregnant (which almost every pregnant women goes through) and trying to still be social and live her normal life.

the movie chronicles the woman's journey too, but also her developing relationship with the father of her baby. not only that the movie focuses on the father and what's going on with him.

people say the word knocked up all the freaking time when talking about getting pregnant. it's hip, and what people of this generation use. it's not exactly original. her plot about getting pregnant unexpectedly is definitely NOT an original story. she might as well sue the creators of "nine months" or "fools rush in" since the plot's "similar". she might as well sue women who got pregnant when they were drunk, because i know plenty of people who've been in that exact situation before. the whole plot of going to a bookstore and being grossed out is not original, and neither is going to the obstetrician or taking multiple pregnancy tests. it's what pregnant women go through! even the joke about the penis hitting the baby joke is SO OLD (it was used in nine months for crying out loud!).

the coincidence of the fathers being canadian jews doesn't work either. seth rogen (plays the father in knocked up) IS a canadian jew, and judd apatow wanted the character to be based on rogen. not only that they've been friends for a while, so it's not like judd apatow went searching for a canadian jew to spite rebecca. the pictures on the book and on the script don't work either, since the image wasn't even used in the movie and i doubt judd apatow put it there. her argument on the words being two different colors is just...lame. that's like saying i should sue my friend for painting her room green because i painted my room green before she did (this is a real example by the way, not the suing part).

rebecca doesn't have a case at all. maaaaybe judd apatow did take her book and used it for his movie. but after reading the book and watching the movie, i just don't see it.

what i loved about the movie was the humor, which of course is not for everyone (seems you didn't like 40 yr old virgin, so definitely not your taste).

however, you should watch the movie before you judge how her book and the movie are similar. they're not. at all. i'm not saying you should love the movie. just don't judge because it's really unfair.

ok well that's my two cents on this. you don't know me, i don't know you, so there's really no reason to be anonymous here since i'll never ever see you :)

Urban Daddy said...

It's my belief that anyone who makes rude comments in someone's blog - stating I'll never come back here - and then posts it as anonymous, if the biggest coward in the entire world.

Trash someones opinion in THEIR blog and then leave like a chicken without a trace. Please. Let me help you here, Laural...

Hey Anon, don't come back. You not welcomed. EVER. Your opinion aint worth squat until you can back it up with a real name. You can have your thoughts, but to trash Laural for her beliefs is just bush league, and for that, you should f^&k off.

And have a nice day!


Laural Dawn said...

Thanks, Urban Daddy!
And, anonymous, I really don't care if you come to my blog.
Personal blogs, much like letters, are addressed to a specific audience. In my case, it is people who, whether or not they like Rebecca, respect my admiration of her.
I wrote this in response to a commenter on 9 gram who said that no one was taking Rebecca's side. And, yes. I am. And I will.
But, thank you for taking the time to detail why you disagree with her lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

what's wrong with being anonymous?

Isn't that the real fascination wtih the internet?

I mean, come on, it's got to be one of the top five reasons why people are digging it (#1 - ability to share info with masses quickly and with far reach, #2 - ability to find like-minded people that might not be geographically close to you, and #3 a delightful place to lie and make things up and pretend you are someone else, or visit other sites and be anonymous and therefore say what you really REALLY mean, with out the contstraintss of politesse. It's like going to a costume ball every day.)
Moreover, to post a 'name' (including photos) doesn't really do anything either. Easily could be an alias. Think about it people.

PS My name IS Anonymous. Anonymous La'Shaka Smith. So there.

Laural Dawn said...

There's nothing wrong with being anonymous.

Sure anonymity is a big part of the internet. I've commented anonymously before. The difference being that I don't hide behind my anonymity in order to say nasty things about people.

It's the concept of "if you're going to say something about me say it to my face not behind my back" which is exactly what these blogs do.

christina said...

ok i'm CHRISTINA, the one with the long comment on the case. i'd told a friend of mine that i had left a comment here, and she told me what you guys said.

i never said i was anonymous. my name is RIGHT THERE if you're blind. i left my email ,although for some reason it didn't show up, so no need to be rude. and i never said "i'll never come back here", i said "i'll never see you." there is a difference.

it's rude to BE rude on a complete stranger's comment who is stating their opinion too. i also find that i was not rude at all in my comment.

to laural dawn:

i do find it admirable that you still stand up for her, despite the odds against her. personally i disagree with her lawsuit (probably because i love the movie and the many points that the plot isn't very original and really simple), but i think it's cool that you'd still support her. i'm sure she appreciates it too!

Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said...

christina, I think the anonymous poster they were speaking about was the one who left the very first comment.. Especially the last paragraph where they say

"Well, I'll never be visiting this blog again - anyone who admires Eckler isn't worth knowing."

I don't think anyone here had a problem with your comments... After all, your comment was not anonymous. You were not the cowardly commenter hiding behind an anon tag...

Laural Dawn said...

I just saw your comment now.
Joey is completely right - that comment was not directed at you. It was directed at the first anonymous who said: "Well, I'll never be visiting this blog again - anyone who admires Eckler isn't worth knowing."

When I posted that I posted it knowing full well that some people don't like Eckler and don't support the lawsuit. Believe it or not, some of my close friends don't *love* Rebecca. I think that's what makes life fun and exciting - different opinions.

What I don't agree with, and what Urban Daddy was referring to, was someone who hijacks comments and ends with something cruel, for absolutely no reason. You did not do that.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but please know that I value your opinion - and appreciate you taking the time to comment :)